The Gathering Storm: Religious Liberty in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution

These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision.

Written by Al Mohler | Thursday, March 23, 2017

Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.

In the first volume of his history of World War II, Winston Churchill looked back at the storm clouds that gathered in the 1930s portending war and the loss of human freedom. Churchill wisely and presciently warned Britain of the tragedy that would ensue if Hitler were not stopped. His actions were courageous and the world was shaped by his convictional leadership. We are not facing the same gathering storm, but we are now facing a battle that will determine the destiny of priceless freedoms and the very foundation of human rights and human dignity.

Speaking thirty years ago, Attorney General Meese warned that “there are ideas which have gained influence in some parts of our society, particularly in some important and sophisticated areas that are opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general. In some areas there are some people that have espoused a hostility to religion that must be recognized for what it is, and expressly countered.”

Those were prophetic words, prescient in their clarity and foresight. The ideas of which Mr. Meese warned have only gained ground in the last thirty years, and now with astounding velocity. A revolution in morality now seeks not only to subvert marriage, but also to redefine it, and thus to undermine an essential foundation of human dignity, flourishing, and freedom.

Religious liberty is under direct threat. During oral arguments in the Obergefell case, the Solicitor General of the United States served notice before the Supreme Court that the liberties of religious institutions will be an open and unavoidable question. Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.

These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision. We are in a fight for the most basic liberties God has given humanity, every single one of us, made in his image. Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.

Religious Liberty and the Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage

Even though same-sex marriage is new to the American scene, the religious liberty challenges became fully apparent even before it became a reality. Soon after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state of Massachusetts, several seminars and symposia were held in order to consider the religious liberty dimensions of this legal revolution. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sponsored one of the most important of these events, which produced a major volume with essays by prominent legal experts on both sides of this revolution. The consensus of every single participant in the conference was that the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage would produce a head-on collision in the courts. As Marc D. Stern, of the American Jewish Congress stated, “Same-sex marriage would work a sea change in American law.” He continued, “That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in ways that are unpredictable today.”

Nevertheless, he predicted some of the battlefronts he saw coming and addressed some of the arguments that could already be recognized. Even then, Stern saw almost all the issues we have recounted, and others yet to come. He saw the campuses of religious colleges and the work of religious institutions as inevitable arenas of legal conflict. He pointed to employment as one of the crucial issues of legal conflict and spoke with pessimism about the ability of religious institutions to maintain liberty in this context, for which he advocates. As Stern argued, “The legalization of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of the different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no.”

Stern did not wait long to have his assessment verified by legal scholars on the other side of the debate. One of the most important of these, Chai R. Feldblum, presented rare candor and revealed that an advocate for same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality could also see these issues coming. Feldblum pointed to what she described as, “the conflict that I believe exists between laws intended to protect the liberty of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people so that they may live lives of dignity and integrity and the religious beliefs of some individuals whose conduct is regulated by such laws.” She went on to state her belief that “those who advocate for LGBT equality have downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs and, equally, I believe those who sought religious exemptions in such civil rights laws have downplayed the impact that such exemptions would have on LGBT people.”

As Feldblum argued, she called for the society to “acknowledge that civil rights laws can burden an individual’s belief liberty interest when the conduct demanded by these laws burdens an individual’s core beliefs, whether such beliefs are religiously or secularly based.” Thus, in Feldblum’s argument, we confront face-to-face the candid assertion that an individual’s “belief liberty interest” must give way to what are now defined as the civil rights of sexual minorities. Feldblum believed she saw the future clearly and that the future would mean “a majority of jurisdictions in this country will have modified their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in our society, including access to civil marriage or to civil unions that carry the same legal effect as civil marriage.” In that future, religious liberty would simply give way to the civil liberties of homosexuals and same-sex couples. Feldblum, then a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, also understood that this moral revolution would mean that the government is “taking sides” in a moral conflict, siding with the LGBT community. This necessarily puts government on the side of that moral judgment, which is precisely the point Feldblum is insisting we must recognize. Once government is on that side of the moral judgment, its laws and its coercion will require those who hold to a contrary moral system, whether based in religious or secular convictions to give way to the new moral judgment affirmed by the government.

In her very revealing argument, Feldblum struggles to find a way to grant recognition and a level of liberty to those who disagree with the normalization of homosexuality, especially on religious grounds. Nevertheless, as she shares quite openly, she is unable to sustain that effort, given her prior commitment to the absolute imposition of the new morality by means of the law and the power of the state. Appointed and later confirmed as Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, nominated by President Obama, Feldblum stated in a different context that the end result of antidiscrimination legislation would mean the victory of sexual rights over religious liberty. She commented that she could not come up with a single case in which, at least hypothetically, religious liberty would triumph over coercion to the new moral morality.

It is crucially important that we understand the moral judgment being made and enforced by legal mechanisms in the wake of this revolution. Feldblum, a lesbian activist who has advocated for same-sex marriage—and for the legalization of polygamy—fully understands the law teaches and reinforces a morality. She insists that the law must allow no deviation in public life from the dictates of the new morality. In this case, this means allowing virtually no exemptions to regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In her presentation at the Becket Fund event, Feldblum cited the writings of Judge Michael McConnell, who both offered support for same-sex marriage and the assurance that the religious liberty of Christians and other religious citizens must be protected. McConnell’s argument is straightforward:

“The starting point would be to extend respect to both sides in the conflict of opinion, to treat both the view that homosexuality is a healthy and normal manifestation of human sexuality and the view that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral as conscientious positions, worthy of respect, much as we treat both atheism and faith as worthy of respect. In using the term ‘respect,’ I do not mean agreement. Rather, I mean the civil toleration we extend to fellow citizens and fellow human beings even when we disagree with their views. We should recognize that the ‘Civil Magistrate’ is no more ‘competent a Judge’ of the ‘Truth’ about human sexuality than about religion.”

Feldblum dismissed his argument by accusing McConnell of failing to recognize “that the government necessarily takes a stance on the moral question he has articulated every time it fails to affirmatively ensure the gay people can live openly, safely, and honestly in society.”

In other words, there must be no exceptions. Religious liberty simply evaporates as a fundamental right grounded in the U.S. Constitution, and recedes into the background in the wake of what is now a higher social commitment—sexual freedom.

This post is an excerpt from Al Mohler’s chapter in First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, edited by Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III.

ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union (Posted June 2008)

It is high time for a statement asserting and explaining the traditional Jewish position on homosexuality. Various Jewish groups have left the impression with the public at large that Judaism is supportive of homosexual behavior to the extent of endorsing same sex marriage. Thus it is imperative for the Orthodox world to make our position clear once more.

The position of traditional Judaism on homosexual behavior is clear and unambiguous, terse and absolute. Homosexual behavior between males or between females is absolutely forbidden by Jewish law, beginning with the biblical imperative, alluded to numerous times in the Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch.

The position of Judaism on marriage is equally clear. Judaism recognizes marriage as a fundamental human institution, and affirms marriage only between a man and woman.

Judaism recognizes the central role of the two-parent, mother-father led family as the vital institution in shaping the entire human race. Within the Jewish people, the two-parent marriage is a model not only for human relations but for relations with the Divine. The Almighty Himself is seen as being a third partner to the father-mother configuration, and the central role of the family, unless circumstances make it impossible, is to conceive and raise children, thereby perpetuating the human race and for Jews, ensuring the continuity of the Jewish people.

I contest the description of Jewish values that has been foisted upon the public by numerous spokesmen of various factions of Judaism, most recently, and extremely, in the David Ellenson essay on these pages ( Same Sex Marriage, In The Jewish Tradition, March 12). To argue that same-sex marriage is consistent with the traditions of Judaism is intellectually dishonest at best and blasphemous at worst.

Nevertheless, while the sources irrevocably forbid homosexual relationships and overt homosexual behavior, there are other issues that are more nuanced and must be clarified. One has to do with the attitude toward homosexual individuals prescribed by Jewish tradition. Here it is critical to adopt the distinction, already implicit in numerous rabbinical texts, between the sin and the sinner; that is, between the person and his or her behavior. Given the nature of our times, it is impossible to formally condemn people who violate Jewish norms. Orthodox Jews and Orthodox synagogues display various degrees of tolerance and acceptance to individuals who are violators of the halachic aspects of the Sabbath, or individuals who flagrantly violate the kashrut laws. The tolerance rightly shown to these individuals by no means condones their behavior, but accepts them as people who may be misled or uninformed. While tolerance for individuals who manifest homosexual tendencies is certainly a Jewish value, and consistent with some of the core values to which Rabbi Ellenson refers, there is a great difference between tolerance for an individual and recognition of a movement which wishes to turn something clearly wrong by Jewish standards into something not only tolerated but normative.

Observant Jews must have an attitude of empathy and understanding for individuals who say, I have these urges, I can t help them. But we cannot accept those who would say, I have these urges, they are God-given and therefore it is a mitzvah to follow them.

Another complex issue that needs to be addressed is the degree to which this clear Jewish position should be translated into public policy in a pluralistic democratic society. Here, people of good will can debate the merits of whether any religion can urge its values upon the greater society. Here we can disagree, although I personally believe that all religions have the responsibility of educating the public to core values that we believe have universal, as well as particular, religious import. In this connection we ought to consider a Talmudic passage (Chullin 92a) that says that the nations of the world, however sinful, corrupt or perverse, still have the merit of at least three behaviors, one of which is they do not write a ketubah for males.

We can also debate the wisdom of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It can be argued that any tampering with the U.S. Constitution, a document that arguably has done more for the Jewish people than any other secular document in historical memory, is a risky proposition. However, whatever your position on the constitutional amendment, the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the definition of marriage is something that any Jew of conscience should oppose.

I, and other Orthodox leaders did not foster this debate; it has been brought upon us. We are taught that certain aspects of human behavior, even very normal and natural functions, are best treated with modesty and privacy. However, the extreme statements and declarations that have been made, and lately in the very name of Judaism, simply cannot be allowed to pass without protest. We cannot be silent upon occasions where Judaism is fraudulently depicted as condoning something that its Torah clearly and irreversibly condemns.

I very much support the way the parents are handling this and I much dislike the twist their son is trying to give it and his attitude as well.

How Does Gay "Marriage" Affect Us?

From a friend on facebook:

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALWAYS try to get in all three prongs of the argument. Different issues resound with different people.

KNOW THE ARGUMENT -

1) Legal -- the people (States) have a right to define marriage because
they are financially and legally invested in it. The government cannot
require us to pay taxes, subsidies, enforce laws, honor licenses in the
form of marriage benefits to such 'couples' without providing a return
(if we so vote - as most states have). Married people do something
'extra' to earn public benefits. The return is the creation of the
future - because WE ALL USE the children of the future. Our future
doctors, policemen, cable guy, etc. Do not fall for arguments like "the
infertile or elderly". Court cases have already noted that the
government has no idea who is infertile, no idea who is medically
correctable, no idea what the future holds and no authority to find out.
Simply put -- it is ruled "unenforceable". In the case of two people of
the same sex, however, we don't have to play stupid that they produce
nothing under any circumstances to earn those benefits we subsidize. The
elderly, in most cases, have ALREADY raised their children, done that
work and expended their fortunes doing it - they aren't 89 year old
virgins. The law applies solid common sense to these arguments. The
public must receive some benefit for their investment. This argument has
been repeatedly upheld by state and federal courts.

2) Health -
the FDA, US Medical Board and medical boards around the world have
banned those engaging in homosexuality from donating sperm, blood and
organs -- because it was KILLING people. We shouldn't have to go into
graphic detail to explain how misusing the body results in higher rates
of cancer, hepatitis, bacterial infections, reactive arthritis, AIDS and
a hundred other conditions you've never heard of except posted on this
page. WHY would the public be interested in encouraging more of it and
teaching or exposing it to children ? Monogamy and condoms do not
prevent cancer and many others. Small, independent doctors groups have
been campaigning against encouraging these pseudo-marriages (we've
posted them - the ones not beholden to large left wing donations).

3) Religious - besides your religious doctrine (since every religion
opposes the behavior, most likely established millenia ago due to the
disease issues - even the EGYPTIANs commented on it), there is the fact
that while certain groups stomp around talking about their rights - what
they really mean is what they WISH was their rights because there is
only ONE specified constitutionally protected BEHAVIOR, and that is the
RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. "Because God says so" is not a public policy
argument - it is an argument of personal religious conviction and that
is fine. But God gave us brains to make effective public policy
arguments too. A lot of people rightfully understand and respect your
personal convictions but are waiting to hear why those who don't share
your faith should be subject to your personal convictions. The
"religious public policy" answer to that is that religion is
constitutionally protected and sexual preference is NOT. Imposing the
behavior on you, your children, your place of work, your business or in
any unreasonable way in your life is a violation of a real
constitutional right that we need to fight to retain and protect. It
isn't that we're imposing religion on others - it's that the
Constitution protects us from them imposing their ways on us. Passing
marriage laws that violate our ways by force of law violates the 1st
Amendment.

Restored Hope Network's Position Statement on Marriage:

Why RHN Advocates for Marriage

RHN upholds the original definition of marriage as understood through Scripture and the history of humanity: one man committed for one woman for the sake of the children they create and/or will influence through their marriage.

Supporting this definition has become necessary in light of recent efforts to alter it to include homosexual unions. In January of 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the USA to legalize ‘gay marriage’; since then, activists have sought to normalize ‘gay marriage’ by encouraging court and legislative decisions, and by convincing the public that changing the definition of marriage is an expression of justice for homosexuals.

RHN declares that ‘gay marriage’ is no marriage at all but a counterfeit that actually promotes injustice.

RHN contends that marriage was designed by God and upheld by the governments of the earth to promote ‘the common good.’ That design, as revealed by nature, and described in Scripture in the creation of Eve from Adam and the reuniting of the two as one-flesh (Gen. 1 and 2), constitutes RHN’s understanding of God’s intention for marriage. (1)

Man needs woman and woman needs man. Neither two men nor two women can create a sexual whole; the one gender possesses what the other gender needs. In giving complementary gifts, one gender balances and draws out the other in a manner that creates a whole. Such wholeness releases ‘goods’ that benefit all, especially the children most influenced by it (2). Justice for children involves one man committed to one woman for their sake.At the center of this understanding of marriage are two people who seal their relationship with a generative act. That not only unites them but also orients them toward children. Though one need not procreate to be married, marriage is defined by the act that is essential to the creating of children.

Becoming ‘one-flesh’ unites man and woman for life; it also includes them to bring up their children together. That is why both God and state encourage norms of monogamy and fidelity in marriage. (3) Both uphold the dignity of each spouse, and of the child who needs a mother and a father in order to thrive. (4)RHN believes that the dignity of man, woman, and child depends upon the willingness of both spouses to make and keep a vow of marital fidelity. ‘Gay marriage’ challenges such dignity by normalizing what is now described as ‘monogamish’: the trend of some same-gender ‘marrieds’ to aspire to emotional intimacy with one party but to engage sexually with others (5). In that way, redefining marriage weakens the essential boundary of sexual commitment, a distortion most harmful to the children subject to a parent’s multiple partnerships (6).

RHN contends that the state should support the true definition of marriage. Such a definition helps promote the common good, which is justice for all. That applies to children who need both a mother and father, and to gay-identified persons who benefit from the truth that eroticized friendships can never approximate marriage. The state serves its citizens well by upholding the original intention and definition of marriage. Generations-to-come will take cues from the culture and will derive (in part) their view of marriage from its legal definition. The state’s conception of marriage matters to all.

As a Christ-centered network of ministries of restoration for persons seeking to overcome sexual problems, especially homosexual ones, RHN realizes the limits of the law. While the state can look out for the common good and restrain evil, it cannot redeem lives. Only Jesus can. Yet we realize that our fellow humanity will be impacted by redefining marriage. Legalizing ‘gay marriage’ will further damage marriage and hurt those influenced by it.

Caitlin Flanagan writes: ‘No other single force is causing as much measurable hardship in this country as the collapse of marriage.’ (7) Redefining marriage contributes to this collapse and will result in more human brokenness, especially in the lives of children who are subject to adult moral decisions and the laws that influence them.

We thus refuse to acknowledge the validity of ‘gay marriage’; it does not originate in God’s design for humanity but in a misbegotten justice that disrupts the common good.

Corruption begins with a failure to call things by their proper names. ‘Gay marriage’ is a misnomer that citizens of the state and church would be wise to refuse. Marriage belongs only to one man committed to one woman for the good of all.

We at RHN also realize that ‘gay marriage’ is a symptom of the heterosexual immorality that preceded it: extramarital sex, adultery, pornography, divorce, and abortion, to name a few. We contest whatever is hostile to marriage. Our pastoral efforts to restore those broken by sexual sin are the foundation for our social policy on marriage. (8)RHN makes every effort to ensure the integrity of this most important relationship.

I had a friend ask a question on another forum about how heterosexual and homosexual relationships differed psychologically This was my answer.There is a difference in the heterosexual dynamic but there are similarities. When a heterosexual falls in love he is projecting his suppressed feminine side or what Jung called the animus onto his love object. The gay man is projecting his suppressed masculine side or anima. This is the first difference. The heterosexual is experiencing through his love object a hidden but minor part of his whole self. When the gay man experiences his own masculinity or anima as a projection on the other man he is experiencing a suppressed core part of himself. That is why gay love and gay sex is so intense compared to heterosexual love and sex and why so often it feels like a compulsion. That is also why the experience at the end of a couple of years when reality breaks through so often differs.For the heterosexual man he may have had the experience he needed to sufficiently "meet" and incorporate this part of himself into himself. The civilizing impact of marriage on men is well documented. As they reunite with this feminine side of themselves they actually incorporate it into their consciousness and passion turns to compassion and this is reflected in a different set of bonding chemicals in the brain. Sexual attraction and attachment to a projection turns to bonding to a real separate person and real love. The relationship can become very close and sweet.

One of the reasons heterosexual marriage is in trouble is that men marry when they are not fully connected to their own masculinity. Most men in modern culture carry wounds from a lack of connection to their fathers meaning their sense of their masculinity is not fully developed. They go to the woman to affirm their masculinity which a woman cannot do. Being immature as men they miss the opportunity to connect to their animus.

When the gay man begins to see through to the other person, the gay relationship does not allow them to reattach in their conscious mind with their hidden masculinity or anima. Instead it makes them even more estranged from their masculinity. You see their anima is a core part of their personality. It is simply to big a part of them to be restored through an affair with a man. Otherwise a gay affair would turn them straight. The drive to reunite with it will not fade because of a few years of interacting with a projection of it. Only doing the kind of gender affirming work that we do in reparative therapy or other men's work will reunite a man with his own suppressed anima. I should mention that in a micro sense the process does work. Within a short time the man I projected on and who now has seen reality break through is no longer sexy to me. In regard to him I am for all practical purposes heterosexual. Many men with a history of acting out have experienced this with a single sex act. Immediately after you are done the person no longer is of any sexual interest to you. You may have experienced this with an image as well. Sometimes when the brain chemistry is right this can take a couple of years. With heterosexual couples the intensity of sexual attraction might fade but not the way it does in gay relationships. That is because they still carry complementary masculine and feminine personalities and bodies. For the gay couple once the projection is gone the sex if it remains at all will be one of convenience rather like consensual sex by heterosexuals in prison.

Jesus
showed mercy when it came to the fulfillment of the law. Shouldn’t we do the
same?

Such
arguments are sometimes brought up by Christians when it comes to divorce
between a man and a woman or also living out one’s same-sex attractions.

So how about
it? Should we?

In short:
If you open that door, you will not be able to shut it anymore. That leaves
room for all sorts of moral relativism. Basically what we are doing here is
putting ourselves on the throne that only belongs to God.

Didn’t
Jesus see the bigger meaning behind keeping the laws? Didn’t He blame the
Pharisees for keeping the Sabbath at all costs when other things – like saving
a human life – might be more important? Yes, He most certainly did. So why can’t
we do the same? In some sense, we can and we should. Jesus told us the deeper
meaning behind the Ten Commandments – which in a sense even made it harder for
us. We are not simply a “good person” anymore for not killing anybody, we
messed it up with God for not having protected human lives and stood up against
abortion for instance. When Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to
divorce from his wife under certain circumstances, He did not simply answer
with “yes” or “no” – He went all the way back to quote the standard from
Genesis. That ought to teach us something about the validity of certain laws
and whether or not to go away from them. He did so not to show that He could
also be unmerciful, but because He loves us and knows that everything else that
is not in line with that standard is not what our loving Father wants for His
children. It is not approved by God and will have consequences for us.

So what if
a couple just cannot live together anymore or the husband beats up his wife?
Under certain circumstances it is necessary for them to separate for a limited
period of time – to prevent further physical or emotional hurts. This is to be
done with the prospect of getting back together again. If this does not work
out – maybe because the husband fails to repent and would beat up his wife
again – a permanent separation might be needed. However, this does not put an
end to the marriage. Marriage is not a contract where we exchange properties,
it is a life-giving covenant that reflects the covenant Jesus made with His
bride the Church – He gave His life so we could live! There are no two
covenants like that. This is not un-merciful – quite on the contrary. God does
this because He loves us and knows what is best for us. Even if a second
marriage is out of question, we can still have a fulfilled life following Jesus
Christ!

So what
about same-sex acts or couples? If they absolutely cannot change, would it not
be appropriate to apply the same rules on those couples (fidelity, staying
monogamous and the like)?

Where on
earth do we get such ideas from? That is the way humans think, but certainly
not God. Yes, we need to show mercy, but that means giving people with same-sex
attractions (or heterosexual couples who are about to break up) unconditional
love and support IN ORDER TO WALK ON THE RIGHT PATH AGAIN! God did not tell us
THOU SHALT NOT DO THIS OR THAT – UNLESS YOU HAVE AN INCLINATION FOR IT OR YOU
MISS TO MEET MY STANDARD – THEN YOU JUST SETTLE FOR LESS! What kind of theology
is that? Shouldn’t sheperds who are responsible for their flock do everything
to get them safely back home? God never gave us a standard that we cannot
fulfill and there is no temptation that is big enough that we cannot resist it.
Jesus died on the Cross for that.

You do not
show “mercy” if you show people a back door in case they don’t meet God’s laws.
I am sure everyone would have a good excuse why he or she needs to take the
easy way out. It wasn’t “unmerciful” of God either to give His own Son to die
for us on the Cross – how do we dare to settle with less then?

Remember
when Jesus saved the prostitute’s life who was about to be stoned? When He told
her accusers that the one who has no sins should throw the first stone? This is
an excellent example: First, Jesus showed unconditional love: He saved the
woman’s life before she could even say beep. But the story does not end here.
He did not tell her well, in case you think this is the way you need to go and
you just don’t get along with a life as I set it out for you, then go ahead.
No, loving Jesus told her to go and sin no more. The same loving Jesus that spoke
about hell like no other before.

So how
about we see God’s laws as the manual of a loving Father that shows us how to
get safely through the storms in life? God did not give us those laws because
He likes to boss us around. They are not simply a long list of dos and don’ts.
The Ten Commandments for example where given to the people of Israel in the
context of their liberation from Egypt. Also those commandments are not simple
a list of “negatives”, a list of things not to do. Each commandment of God has
two sides – much like a coin. Think about “Thou shalt not kill” – that also means
we should preserve life. He will not only hold us responsible for the bad things
we did, but also for the good things we failed to do.

To cut a
long story short: Mercy? Yes, but mercy God’s way. No back-doors anymore by
watering down God’s Word.

It ticks me off when I see people who are divorced and remarried or live
with their lover complain about same-sex marriage. Their relationship
status is in no way different from that - at least not from a Christian
perspective.

"In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”."

Civil partnership wanted to equivalate the traditional wedding with gay partnership, LGBT can have same rights as the married people.

The set of rights under the bill include:

- "Property acquired during civil partnership, any partner shall, from the date of their acquisition, joint property of the partners in the joint property, except where the two partners have decided otherwise by contract civil partnership."

- "The income of both partners will be considered together when calculating the minimum income guarantee in accordance with the Law Nr.416 / 2001 MIG; when contracting a bank loan will take into account the income of both partners. "

- "Medical services needed one partner who has no medical insurance may be granted under the medical insurance of the other civil partner; in case of hospitalization of one partner, the other is considered belonging "

- "On the death of one partner, the surviving partner is entitled to inheritance when the competition comes with either class of heirs, inheritance law especially on furniture and objects belonging to the household and gifts received by the partners during the civil partnership as well as the habitation on tenant. "

- "Surviving partner is entitled to a survivor's pension under art. 83-93 of Law no. 263/2010 on the public pension system and other social insurance rights and the legislation in force "

- "Either of the two partners have the right to continue the lease of the house when leaving permanent residence by the holder of the lease or death."

- "The two partners have the right to move and reside freely and the right of permanent residence in Romania according to Government Emergency Ordinance no.102 / 2005 on the free movement of citizens of EU Member States and EEA European citizens and the Swiss Confederation "

- "If the process of obtaining Romanian citizenship, both partners benefit from the provisions of Article 8 of Law No. Romanian citizenship. 21/1991 "

"Homosexuality is a misguided search for love and affirmation in sexual behavior that is contrary to nature." - Frank Worthen, Father of the Ex-Gay Movement in the USA

"Interesting
that they call it "gay pride" because pride is the worst of sins and
the root of all other sins - in essence a stubborn rebellion against God
and his commandments. This parade in Tel Aviv is awful and shameful not
only because Israel promotes
sexual perversion and the distortion of God's purpose for the human
person, but it's even worse because they celebrate it with "pride".
Remember that God will extend His protection upon you, Israel, only to
the extent that you keep his commandments. In other words, you are
inviting disaster upon your nation. Repent!"

Andre Villeneuve on the Gay Pride in Israel

"What works best? You need a love greater than your desire for the same sex. A love that transcends everything. A love that goes beyond your wildest imagination and dreams. A love and a deep desire for God."